By admin 
Did you know that Truthout is a nonprofit and independently funded by readers like you? If you value what we do, please support our work with a donation.
Read more Trump Calls Somali Americans “Crooks” in Racist Cabinet Rant
During a little-noticed Senate Judiciary Committee hearing last week, nominees for federal judgeships were questioned on their beliefs regarding President Donald Trump’s Article II authority, with at least one nominee, Matthew Schwartz — a former lawyer for Trump — refusing to give a clear answer.
Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minnesota) asked Schwartz to specifically comment on a statement Trump made in 2019, in which he claimed at a political rally to have absolute authority.
“I have an Article II, where I have the right to do whatever I want as president,” Trump said at the time.
Citing those words, Klobuchar asked Schwartz, “Do you believe the president is able to do anything he wants to do?”
Despite Trump’s comments being widely publicized, Schwartz claimed he didn’t “know the context” of what the president had said. Instead, the nominee for a judgeship on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals (a lifetime judicial position) recited basic civics lessons as his response.
“We have a constitutional system of checks and balances,” Schwartz said. “The executive branch is obviously very strong in certain areas, and has tremendous amounts of power and discretion. And in other areas, the other branches have power and discretion, and there’s a balance amongst them.”
“Without knowing the context [of Trump’s words], I really couldn’t comment further on it,” he added.
In no part of his response did Schwartz explain his beliefs on Article II authorities or limits.
Article II of the U.S. Constitution does not, in fact, empower presidents to do “whatever” they want, but rather provides the framework for the scope of their powers. The broad authority presidents do have has typically been granted by congressional consent over the past two centuries of governance, but that branch has never conferred absolute power on the executive.
Schwartz is a partner at the law firm Sullivan & Cromwell, and, prior to his nomination, was working alongside a team of lawyers on Trump’s appeal of his 2024 “hush money” conviction in New York. The nominee has also clerked for conservative Justice Samuel Alito, who is no stranger himself to the unitary executive theory that Trump has peddled multiple times during his two presidential terms.
Read more Biden-Era Advisors Who Oversaw Gaza Genocide Regroup to Shape Democratic Party Foreign Policy
Due to his perceived loyalty to the president, as well as his far right stances on social issues, several organizations are urging the Judiciary Committee to reject advancing Schwartz’s nomination to the full Senate.
“We do not support confirming any judicial nominees of Donald Trump,” a statement from People for the American Way read, noting that the president “is dangerously unqualified to be making lifetime appointments to the one branch of government that is in a position to provide checks and balances to his lawless actions.”
On Schwartz specifically, the organization noted that the nominee’s “loyalty to Trump, and his lifetime of work empowering the already-powerful, make him a poor choice for a position that is supposed to provide equal justice under the law.”
Included in their opposition to Schwartz was his past stances against marriage equality. Beyond being against same-sex marriages in general, Schwartz has publicly lambasted Jewish and Christian religious sects that have allowed private ceremonies for those couples, and has, at times, insisted that those ceremonies should not take place at all.
“Schwartz’s arrogant and contemptuous dismissal of other people’s faith is deeply disturbing…The Senate should not give him a lifetime judicial position deciding the rights of others,” People for the American Way said.
Alliance for Justice, a progressive coalition representing around 140 public interest and civil rights groups, also urged against voting to advance Schwartz’s nomination.
The organization explained its opposition, :
Schwartz has spent his career ensuring billionaires can expand their net worths at the expense of working families and shielding corporations from accountability for their wrongdoing. Schwartz has also expressed extreme viewpoints undermining racial justice, attacking same-sex marriage, and demeaning individuals seeking reproductive care.
The organization’s statement also noted that Schwartz has claimed that conservatives and white students on college campuses are victims of discrimination due to Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) policies.
“Schwartz’s many documented biases and hostility towards LGBTQ+ individuals, people of color, and working families living paycheck to paycheck, exemplify a lack of independence, fitness, and fortitude for a lifetime role on the federal judiciary,” .
“If confirmed to a lifetime seat on the federal judiciary, Schwartz will likely continue his lifelong work of protecting the richest among us while expressing disdain for civil rights and civil liberties,” the organization added.
Read more DOJ Begins Investigating E. Jean Carroll, Who Won Two Civil Cases Against Trump